Would Like To Hear From Strain Gauge Owners

Dear friends: According with what we can see in fig.4 the SG frequency response it is not only not following the RIAA curve ( with small deviations like other MC/MM phono stages.) but IMHO it takes a totally different " path ": it is an equalization over the RIAA eq that from my point of view is unacceptable with the today RIAA standards in the recordings that is the way how almost all the LPS that you, me and anyone else have were recorded.

IMHO the SG response needs a different recording standards!!!!!!!! and nothing is wrong with that if the RIAA accept to make the changes that the SG needs: of course that this is out of question/order.

Now I really understand why sounds to me so un-natural.

IMHO it is useless to make comparisons between the SG and MC/MM cartridges: both are totally different from the point of view of what information give us each one: the MC/MM according with the RIAA eq which with the recording was recorded and the SG an equalized information out of the RIAA standards, no I have to pass on the SG in his today status.

Now if the designer decide to go with the RIAA standard and not with his own ones then things could change for the better but again in its today status the SG IMHO is a device for other circumstances not for play our LPs.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Dgad's comments is exactly what I heard. I heard the SG vs The Voice. I much preferred the Voice. I can see why some like the SG. It's quick, explosive, transparent and much like what Raul said, it was just WOW! at first. The fireworks did not last too long. Don't get me wrong, it (SG) is a mighty fine sounding cartridge but not my cup of tea. The differece was the SG made me listen to the sonics while the Voice made me listen to the music.

It may be time for me to jump in here. While I apprecaite all the comments, and empathize with those who love audio and the attempt to explain what they hear though technical terms, there comes a point where it makes sense for the designer to make a stab at clearing the air. I will address two issues: 1) Relevant factual information that might shed some light, and 2) Technical information intended to both enlighten and confound, strictky due to the real world complexity of why things sound as they do.

1) The Italian article did a very good job of explaining to a general audience the difference between "velocity" devices and "displacement" devices, and how RIAA is handled. That was, in part, their objective - it was to inform.

2) Comments that attempt to quantize one's experience by referring to amplitude pertubations are equivalent to four blind men each describing what an elephant is by touching varied parts - and invariably giving an incomplete view of the animal. Sound is complex - yes - if there is a terrible amplitude anomoly, it makes for bad or unlistenable products. But audio has a long litany of products that are quite wonderful that are not "flat".

The human ear lives in the time domain - if this fact is not understood by enthusiasts approaching the field, it is part of audio 101. There are those who insist on .1dB flatness without undertanding that a full sytem tuned and maximized for flatness often introduces phase or time error that are a cure worse than the disease. The small pertubation bumps one sees on a speaker reponse are just that - phase interractions. They give, in part, the tonal flavor of a product.

Although we have made some recent changes on our preamp design to realize a very small change in amplitude and phase flatness, the original product was well received by most listeners and owners. If the frequency response were very bad, that would not have been the case.

What is important to gather (which is hard to do)is what time errors occur in any product, how many, where do they exists in the freq domain, how far do they spread, and how serious are they? This describes only one part of the problem when trying to use technical terms to exlain what we hear. We listen to speakers that are far from flat, in environments that are far from perfect, and often get very good results. Why is that??

The answer in part is that. What is the rise time of the product (how fast is it). Does it ring (resonate) if it is a transducer. How much time shift is there, and how much. THEN, what is the overall response.

If a products design criteria are in accord with certain critical parameters that physics say are good things, it may in fact work well. From then on, your ears are the judge. But do get the laws straight. Amplitude flatness can easily be done at the sacrifice of other MORE IMPORTANT parameters.

Peter Ledermann/President/Soundsmith

Dear Peter: With al respect to you and IMHO when any device has a good design that conforms with the standards of the audio industry ( in this case the RIAA eq. ) it does not needs any kind of excuses/explanation like the ones that you are given here.

That is not the main subject from my point of view:

my main subject is that in today status the SG response does not conforms according to the RIAA standard eq., I'm sure that you understand perfectly the term/word STANDARD and the whys the RIAA give the precise conformation of the RIAA curve eq.

From my point of view, and please correct me about, your SG design is out of that RIAA standards and is not a device to hear recordings ( LPs ) that were recorded under the RIAA standard eq. Of course that you can hear it in the same manner that we can add an equalizer to our systems but that is not the point.

Peter, I think that all of us really appreciate if you give the answer to this question: could you tell us if the SG was designed to conform with the RIAA standard eq. with which all the LPs were recorded?, please a simple answer: yes or no.

Thank you in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Raul, why does it always sound like you are justifying/defending your own marketing brochure? And, you use no disclaimers? ;-)